research-article

Public Access

Perceptions of Domestic Robots' Normative Behavior Across Cultures

Authors:

Stephanie Milani,

Vigneshram Krishnamoorthy,

Katia SycaraAuthors Info & Claims

AIES '19: Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

Pages 345 - 351

https://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314251

Published: 27 January 2019 Publication History

Abstract

As domestic service robots become more common and widespread, they must be programmed to efficiently accomplish tasks while aligning their actions with relevant norms. The first step to equip domestic robots with normative reasoning competence is understanding the norms that people apply to the behavior of robots in specific social contexts. To that end, we conducted an online survey of Chinese and United States participants in which we asked them to select the preferred normative action a domestic service robot should take in a number of scenarios. The paper makes multiple contributions. Our extensive survey is the first to: (a) collect data on attitudes of people on normative behavior of domestic robots, (b) across cultures and (c) study relative priorities among norms for this domain. We present our findings and discuss their implications for building computational models for robot normative reasoning.

References

[1]

Thomas Arnold and Matthias Scheutz. 2017. Beyond moral dilemmas: Exploring the ethical landscape in HRI. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 445--452.

Digital Library

[2]

Jean-Francc ois Bonnefon, Azim Shariff, and Iyad Rahwan. 2016. The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science, Vol. 352, 6293 (2016), 1573--1576.

[3]

Geoffrey Brennan, Lina Eriksson, Robert E Goodin, and Nicholas Southwood. 2013. Explaining norms .Oxford University Press.

[4]

Vincent Conitzer, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Jana Scaich Borg, Yuan Deng, and Max Kramer. 2017. Moral Decision Making Frameworks for Artificial Intelligence. In Proceedings of the 31st AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI).

[5]

Maartje MA de Graaf, Somaya Ben Allouch, and Jan AGM van Dijk. 2017. Why Would I Use This in My Home? A Model of Domestic Social Robot Acceptance. Human-Computer Interaction (2017), 1--59.

[6]

Michele J Gelfand, Jana L Raver, Lisa Nishii, Lisa M Leslie, Janetta Lun, Beng Chong Lim, Lili Duan, Assaf Almaliach, Soon Ang, Jakobina Arnadottir, et al. 2011. Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. science, Vol. 332, 6033 (2011), 1100--1104.

[7]

Kerstin S Haring, David Silvera-Tawil, Tomotaka Takahashi, Mari Velonaki, and Katsumi Watanabe. 2015. Perception of a humanoid robot: a cross-cultural comparison. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 821--826.

[8]

Geert Hofstede. 2001. Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage publications.

[9]

Peter H Kahn Jr, Takayuki Kanda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Brian T Gill, Jolina H Ruckert, Solace Shen, Heather E Gary, Aimee L Reichert, Nathan G Freier, and Rachel L Severson. 2012. Do people hold a humanoid robot morally accountable for the harm it causes?. In Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 33--40.

Digital Library

[10]

Shinobu Kitayama, Batja Mesquita, and Mayumi Karasawa. 2006. Cultural affordances and emotional experience: socially engaging and disengaging emotions in Japan and the United States. Journal of personality and social psychology, Vol. 91, 5 (2006), 890.

[11]

Kheng Lee Koay, Dag Sverre Syrdal, Mohammadreza Ashgari-Oskoei, Michael L Walters, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2014. Social roles and baseline proxemic preferences for a domestic service robot. International Journal of Social Robotics, Vol. 6, 4 (2014), 469--488.

[12]

Vigneshram Krishnamoorthy, Wenhao Luo, Michael Lewis, and Katia Sycara. 2018. A Computational Framework for Integrating Task Planning and Norm Aware Reasoning for Social Robots. In INternational Conference of Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE.

[13]

Bee Wah Lee, Lynette Pei-Chi Shek, Irvin Francis A Gerez, Shu E Soh, and Hugo P Van Bever. 2008. Food Allergy--Lessons from Asia. World Allergy Organization Journal, Vol. 1, 7 (2008), 129.

[14]

Hee Rin Lee, JaYoung Sung, Selma vS abanović, and Joenghye Han. 2012. Cultural design of domestic robots: A study of user expectations in Korea and the United States. In 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. IEEE, 803--808.

[15]

Angela K-Y Leung and Dov Cohen. 2011. Within-and between-culture variation: individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures. Journal of personality and social psychology, Vol. 100, 3 (2011), 507.

[16]

Dingjun Li, PL Patrick Rau, and Ye Li. 2010. A cross-cultural study: Effect of robot appearance and task. International Journal of Social Robotics, Vol. 2, 2 (2010), 175--186.

[17]

Bertram F Malle, Matthias Scheutz, and Joseph L Austerweil. 2017. Networks of social and moral norms in human and robot agents. In A world with robots. Springer, 3--17.

[18]

Bertram F Malle, Matthias Scheutz, Jodi Forlizzi, and John Voiklis. 2016. Which robot am I thinking about?: The impact of action and appearance on people's evaluations of a moral robot. In The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction. IEEE Press, 125--132.

Digital Library

[19]

Winter Mason and Siddharth Suri. 2012. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Behavior research methods, Vol. 44, 1 (2012), 1--23.

[20]

James H Moor. 2006. The nature, importance, and difficulty of machine ethics. IEEE intelligent systems, Vol. 21, 4 (2006), 18--21.

Digital Library

[21]

Tatsuya T Nomura, Dag Sverre Syrdal, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2015. Differences on social acceptance of humanoid robots between Japan and the UK. In Procs 4th Int Symposium on New Frontiers in Human-Robot Interaction. The Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour (AISB).

[22]

Maribel Pino, Mélodie Boulay, Francc ois Jouen, and Anne Sophie Rigaud. 2015. "Are we ready for robots that care for us?" Attitudes and opinions of older adults toward socially assistive robots. Frontiers in aging neuroscience, Vol. 7 (2015), 141.

[23]

Maha Salem, Gabriella Lakatos, Farshid Amirabdollahian, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2015. Would you trust a (faulty) robot?: Effects of error, task type and personality on human-robot cooperation and trust. In Proceedings of ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 141--148.

Digital Library

[24]

Maha Salem, Micheline Ziadee, and Majd Sakr. 2014. Marhaba, how may i help you?: effects of politeness and culture on robot acceptance and anthropomorphization. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction. ACM, 74--81.

Digital Library

[25]

Massimiliano Scopelliti, Maria Vittoria Giuliani, and Ferdinando Fornara. 2005. Robots in a domestic setting: a psychological approach. Universal access in the information society, Vol. 4, 2 (2005), 146--155.

Digital Library

[26]

Cory-Ann Smarr, Tracy L Mitzner, Jenay M Beer, Akanksha Prakash, Tiffany L Chen, Charles C Kemp, and Wendy A Rogers. 2014. Domestic robots for older adults: attitudes, preferences, and potential. International journal of social robotics, Vol. 6, 2 (2014), 229--247.

[27]

Harry C Triandis. 1996. The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American psychologist, Vol. 51, 4 (1996), 407.

[28]

Lin Wang, Pei-Luen Patrick Rau, Vanessa Evers, Benjamin Krisper Robinson, and Pamela Hinds. 2010. When in Rome: the role of culture & context in adherence to robot recommendations. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction. IEEE Press, 359--366.

Digital Library

[29]

James E Young, Richard Hawkins, Ehud Sharlin, and Takeo Igarashi. 2009. Toward acceptable domestic robots: Applying insights from social psychology. International Journal of Social Robotics, Vol. 1, 1 (2009), 95.

Cited By

Dietrich MPohle J(2024)Robot Design for Social IntervenabilityProceedings of the 13th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/3679318.3685392(1-9)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3679318.3685392
Dobrosovestnova AReinboth TWeiss A(2024)Towards an Integrative Framework for Robot Personality ResearchACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/364001013:1(1-22)Online publication date: 10-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3640010
Zhang ZWang Y(2024)Regulating Cross-Cultural Moral Sensitivity: An Image Ethic Analysis of Appearance Design of Intelligent MachineCross-Cultural Design10.1007/978-3-031-60904-6_24(334-358)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60904-6_24
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Perceptions of Domestic Robots' Normative Behavior Across Cultures

Recommendations

Autonomous behavior design for robotic appliance
HRI '07: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction

We consider robotic appliances, mobile and intelligent robots that perform household tasks, and study design method for autonomous behaviors of robotic appliances, a key component in human-robot and robot-environment interactions. Specifically, we ...
Autonomy, Embodiment, and Obedience to Robots
HRI'15 Extended Abstracts: Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts

We conducted an HRI obedience experiment comparing an autonomous robotic authority to: (i) a remote-controlled robot, and (ii) robots of variant embodiments during a deterrent task. The results suggest that half of people will continue to perform a ...
Design and Simulation of Autonomous Mobile Robots Obstacle Avoidance System
LNCS on Transactions on Edutainment XIII - Volume 10092

Autonomous mobile robot is a completely unknown or partially unknown, of its complex environment, which requires the ability to avoid obstacles in order to move safely and avoid the collisions while navigating. To solve this problem, it opted to propose ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

AIES '19: Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

January 2019

577 pages

ISBN:9781450363242

DOI:10.1145/3306618

General Chairs:
Vincent Conitzer
Duke University, USA
,
Gillian Hadfield
University of Toronto + Vector Institute, Canada; OpenAI, USA
,
Shannon Vallor
Santa Clara University, USA

Copyright © 2019 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

SIGAI: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence
AAAI: American Association for Artificial Intelligence

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 27 January 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

AIES '19

Sponsor:

SIGAI
AAAI

AIES '19: AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

January 27 - 28, 2019

HI, Honolulu, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 61 of 162 submissions, 38%

Upcoming Conference

AIES '24

Sponsor:
sigai

AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

October 21 - 23, 2024

San Jose , CA , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

15
Total Citations
View Citations
728
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)136
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)25

Reflects downloads up to 06 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Dietrich MPohle J(2024)Robot Design for Social IntervenabilityProceedings of the 13th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/3679318.3685392(1-9)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3679318.3685392
Dobrosovestnova AReinboth TWeiss A(2024)Towards an Integrative Framework for Robot Personality ResearchACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/364001013:1(1-22)Online publication date: 10-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3640010
Zhang ZWang Y(2024)Regulating Cross-Cultural Moral Sensitivity: An Image Ethic Analysis of Appearance Design of Intelligent MachineCross-Cultural Design10.1007/978-3-031-60904-6_24(334-358)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60904-6_24
Roesler OBagheri EAly ARossi SAlami R(2023)Socially acceptable robot behaviorInteraction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial SystemsInteraction Studies / Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial SystemsInteraction Studies10.1075/is.00015.edi23:3(355-359)Online publication date: 21-Apr-2023
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.00015.edi
Au RLing KFraune MTsui KSakamoto DWeiss AHiatt LShiomi M(2022)Robot Touch to Send SympathyProceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction10.5555/3523760.3523811(372-382)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3523760.3523811
Au RLing KFraune MTsui K(2022)Robot Touch to Send Sympathy: Divergent Perspectives of Senders and Recipients2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI)10.1109/HRI53351.2022.9889419(372-382)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI53351.2022.9889419
Green NFourcade MKuipers BLazar SMulligan D(2021)An AI Ethics Course Highlighting Explicit Ethical AgentsProceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society10.1145/3461702.3462552(519-524)Online publication date: 21-Jul-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3461702.3462552
Gasteiger NHellou MAhn H(2021)Optimizing human-robot interaction through personalization: An evidence-informed guide to designing social service robots2021 18th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots (UR)10.1109/UR52253.2021.9494695(53-56)Online publication date: 12-Jul-2021
https://doi.org/10.1109/UR52253.2021.9494695
Gasteiger NHellou MAhn H(2021)Factors for Personalization and Localization to Optimize Human–Robot Interaction: A Literature ReviewInternational Journal of Social Robotics10.1007/s12369-021-00811-815:4(689-701)Online publication date: 19-Aug-2021
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00811-8
van Maris AZook NCaleb-Solly PStudley MWinfield ADogramadzi S(2020)Designing Ethical Social Robots—A Longitudinal Field Study With Older AdultsFrontiers in Robotics and AI10.3389/frobt.2020.000017Online publication date: 24-Jan-2020
https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2020.00001
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents